Re: [RFC net-next 0/2] net: dsa: bcm_sf2: Utilize PHYLINK for all ports

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 7/26/2022 6:29 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 09:14:17AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> This begs the natural question, is overriding the link status ever needed?
>>
>> It was until we started to unconditionally reset the switch using the
>> "external" reset method as opposed to the "internal" reset method
>> which turned out not to be functional:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=eee87e4377a4b86dc2eea0ade162b0dc33f40576
> 
> Ok, I see.
> 
>> At any rate (no pun intended), 4908 will want a 2GBit/sec IMP port to
>> be set-up and we have no way to do that other than by forcing that
>> setting, either through the bcm_sf2_imp_setup() method or via a hack
>> to the mac_link_up() callback. This is kind of orthogonal in the sense
>> that there is no "official" support for speed 2000 mbits/sec anyway in
>> the emulated SW PHY, PHYLINK or anywhere in between but if we want to
>> fully transition over to PHYLINK to configure all ports, which is
>> absolutely the goal, we will need to find a solution one way or
>> another.
> 
> So I made some tests with speed = <2000>; in the device tree and in a
> way I'm more confused than when I started. I was expecting phylink_validate()
> to somehow fail but this isn't at all what happened. Instead everything
> seems to work just fine, minus some ergonomic details (some prints).
> 
> So in the case of a fixed-link, phylink_validate() is actually called
> twice, once directly from phylink_create() and once almost immediately
> afterwards from phylink_parse_fixedlink(). Both validations are of the
> inquisitive kind rather than the confrontational kind, i.e. their return
> value isn't checked, and "pl->supported"/"pl->link_config.advertising"
> are initially filled by phylink with all ones, in order for the driver
> to reduce this to all link mode bits that are supported.
> Minor side note, this second validation done during fixed-link parsing
> is redundant IMO, because nothing relevant inside the arguments that we
> pass to pl->mac_ops->validate() will have changed in any way between the
> calls.
> 
> Anyway, if phylink_validate() is never going to confront us about the
> pl->supported link mode mask becoming zero, you might wonder why it
> calls even inquisitively in the first place.
> 
> Essentially phylink_parse_fixedlink() just wants to print in case it's
> using a link speed that isn't supported by the driver. To do that, it
> calls phy_lookup_setting() where one of the arguments is pl->supported
> itself. But in our case, there is no link mode for speed 2000, although
> that shouldn't matter, since no Ethernet PHY sees or needs to advertise
> this speed, so phy_lookup_setting() finds nothing. I suspect this is
> largely due to historical reasons, where the link modes were the common
> denominator at the level of the driver visible phylink_validate() API.
> Today we may simply extend config->mac_capabilities and forgo adding
> bogus link modes just for this to work.
> 
> Curiously, even if we go to the extra lengths of silencing phylink's
> "fixed link not recognised" warning, nothing seems to be broken even if
> we don't do that.
> 
> Immediately after pl->supported has been populated by the inquisitive
> phylink_validate(), phylink clears it (which means that the pl->supported
> variable used above could have very well been just a temporary on-stack
> variable), and just populates some fields.
> Namely the pause fields, and a *single* speed, corresponding to "s"
> (what phy_lookup_setting() found).
> 
> 	linkmode_zero(pl->supported);
> 	phylink_set(pl->supported, MII);
> 	phylink_set(pl->supported, Pause);
> 	phylink_set(pl->supported, Asym_Pause);
> 	phylink_set(pl->supported, Autoneg);
> 	if (s) {
> 		__set_bit(s->bit, pl->supported);
> 		__set_bit(s->bit, pl->link_config.lp_advertising);
> 	} else {
> 		phylink_warn(pl, "fixed link %s duplex %dMbps not recognised\n",
> 			     pl->link_config.duplex == DUPLEX_FULL ? "full" : "half",
> 			     pl->link_config.speed);
> 	}
> 
> Why phylink even bothers to keep the speed-related linkmode in
> pl->supported, if it won't use it anywhere further, I can't answer.
> I can even delete the "if (s) ... else ..." block altogether and nothing
> seems to be adversely impacted.
> 
> In any case, the short version of the code walkthrough is that phylink
> can apparently operate in fixed-link mode with a pl->supported and
> pl->link_config.lp_advertising mask of link modes that doesn't contain
> any speed, and this won't generate any error, although I'm not completely
> sure it was intended either.

OK, well maybe we need to syszbot the crap out of PHYLINK at some point, 
kunit anyone?

> 
>> I would prefer if also we sort of "transferred" the 'fixed-link'
>> parameters from the DSA Ethernet controller attached to the CPU port
>> onto the PHYLINK instance of the CPU port in the switch as they ought
>> to be strictly identical otherwise it just won't work. This would
>> ensure that we continue to force the link and it would make me sleep
>> better a night to know that the IMP port is operating strictly the
>> same way it was. My script compares register values before/after for
>> the registers that are static and this was flagged as a difference.
> 
> There are several problems with transferring the parameters. Most
> obvious derives from what we discussed about speed = <2000> just above:
> the DSA master won't have it, either, because it's a non-standard speed.
> Additionally, the DSA master may be missing the phy-mode too.
> 
> Second has to do with how we transfer the phy-mode assuming it isn't
> missing on the master. RGMII modes are clearly problematic precisely
> because we have so many driver interpretations of what they mean.
> But "mii" and "rmii" aren't all that clear-cut either. Do we translate
> into "mii" and "rmii" for DSA, or "rev-mii" and "rev-rmii"?
> bcm_sf2 understands "rev-mii", but mv88e6xxx doesn't.

Yep, you have me convinced. I suppose the course of action for me is to 
update the DTSes to also include a fixed-link property and phy-mode 
property in the CPU node, even if that duplicates what the Ethernet 
controller node already has, and then given a cycle or two, merge this 
patch series.
-- 
Florian